linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:37:48 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com, willy@...ux.intel.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, airlied@...il.com,
	maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com, walken@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Move locking primitives into kernel/locking/

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:10:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > During Kernel Summit Dave mentioned that there wasn't a clear maintainer for
> > locking bits.
> > 
> > To remedy this Ingo suggested gathering all the various locking primitives and
> > lockdep into a single place: kernel/locking/.
> > 
> > I would further like to propose a MAINTAINERS entry like:
> > 
> > LOCKING
> > M:      Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > M:      Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > M:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > M:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > M:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > T:      git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/core
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      kernel/locking/
> > 
> > Because for most 'fun' locking discussions we usually end up with at least
> > those people anyway :-)
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> OK, I am in.
> 
> How are we organizing this?  I could imagine divvying up the various
> types of locks, having a minimum number of reviews or acks coupled
> with a maximum review time, or just requiring the full set of reviews
> and acks given the criticality of locking code.  Other approaches?

I would suggest something like an ack/review of at least 3/5, no hard
deadline, because as you say, its better to get locking right :-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/